1. “Since you find it amusing that the ACLU is attempting to protect the civil liberties of foreign terrorists…”

~Yes, I do find it quite amusing that we should coddle the enemy, and protect them under a constitution for which they seek to destroy.

“…Would you object if the eavesdropping program were applied to American citizens who aren’t terrorists?”

~I think that you may be misguiding the reader, because you have failed to say if they are innocent or not, or if they are suspected terrorists, or if they are just plain innocent law abiding citizens of the greatest nation on God’s green earth. If they are suspected terrorists it is “reasonable”, and that is exactly what the President is doing. Another thing not adressed is the fact that the President is still allowing the NSA to seek warrants on US to US calls.

2. “Is the determination of whether a search is “reasonable” one for you to make, the President to make, or for a court to make?”

~I think that the President absolutely traveled the right course by getting this approved by a bi-partisan senate Jusiciary Committee… The guys that make the laws of our great nation.

“And certainly I cannot recall ANY court decision supporting that interpretation”

That means nothing. We have court decisions that uphold abortion and same sex marriages but that does not give them Constitutional veracity.

“At the time that the eavesdropping takes place, we don’t know whether the caller (or the recipient) is a terrorist”

No one in the U.S. is being eavesdropped on (if that is grammatically correct) unless a terrorist is on the other line. Otherwise no eavesdropping is taking place.

“You are actually the first person in a long time providing somewhat reasonable debate”

Too true. Erassmussimo, you must forgive my harsh tone but I’m use to people calling me every swear name in the book rather than actually discuss things with me.

“what’s your assessment of Eisenhower’s actions in 1956?”

Have to get back to you. I didn’t research that one as extensively.

Let me ask you this, would you have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you were to surf the net in a public library?

There was an interesting case involving analog cordless phones some years back. I think in that case the court ruled that anybody could intercept such cordless phone trasmissions and so it was OK for the Feds to do so. However, nowadays most of those transmissions are digitally encrypted and so the user has a “reasonable expectation” of privacy. But my memory of the specifics is poor on this question.

It doesn’t really matter WHY the government is seeking to eavesdrop. The Fourth Amendment makes no such distinctions, hence the fact that the eavesdropping is part of foreign intelligence is irrelevant. That’s why FISA was set up in the first place: to establish an effective way to meet the demands of the Fourth Amendment while not compromising national security.

1. I agree we can not blame Carter for all the problems in the Middle East. But, I will lay a HUGE chunk of the blame on him. Of course other Presidents have added to it, and of course we can’t forget that the tribal mentality of their theocracy stuck in the dark ages must take the majority of blame.

2. There is a difference between searches and eavesdropping. Your use of the word terrorist does not matter. They can be suspected terrorists…it is collecting foreign intelligence.

1.”Eavesdropping isn’t a search, strictly worded.” That’s a novel idea. The Fourth Amendment says that the “right of the people to be secure… against unreasonable searches…” You’re saying that people can be secure against searches but not secure against eavesdropping? That’s a huge non sequitur to me. And certainly I cannot recall ANY court decision supporting that interpretation. Perhaps I am ill-informed; can you provide an example?

2. “The fourth amendment by the way, does NOT protect outside citizens against “unreasonable searches.” The Constitution does not apply to the enemy, nor is it even implied.”

Here’s what the Fourth Amendment actually says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…” The governing term here is “the people”. Now, this topic has been debated at length and the key argument is the opening line of the Constitution, “We the people of the United States”. The argument is that this means that “the people” refers only to citizens of the United States. Unfortunately, this argument has a lot of holes in it. After all, the people of the United States who ordained and established the Constitution are all dead now; you and I weren’t there then so you and I don’t deserve any Constitutional protections either — by that line of reasoning. In the Fifth Amendment it says that “no PERSON shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” In this context a person applies to anybody, citizen or non-citizen alike. Does that fact that they used “person” in the Fifth Amendment and “the people” in the Fourth Amendment imply a different intent? That’s a question to argue over all night. (BTW, the Fifth Amendment, strictly interpreted, definitly applies to the prisoners at Guantanamo.)

3. “Eavesdropping on incoming calls made by terrorists does not in any way violate the Constitution.” The problem with this is that the term “terrorists” has no legal meaning. At the time that the eavesdropping takes place, we don’t know whether the caller (or the recipient) is a terrorist. That’s why the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant based on “probable cause”. Sure, if we KNEW that the call was from a terrorist, then we could proceed without legal problems. But it’s precisely because we DON’T KNOW that we require a warrant.

4. “I’ll lay full blame of the collapse of the Middle East on Carter.” Well, OK, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I’ll ask you this: what’s your assessment of Eisenhower’s actions in 1956?

Eavesdropping isn’t a search, strictly worded. The fourth amendment by the way, does NOT protect outside citizens against “unreasonable searches.” The Constitution does not apply to the enemy, nor is it even implied. Eavesdropping on incoming calls made by terrorists does not in any way violate the Constitution.

I’ll lay full blame of the collapse of the Middle East on Carter. You may argue that many Presidents have had the opportunity to “make peace” with the Muslim regimes controlling the area, (an ubsurd idea) but had Carter done his duty, the Muslim regimes would not control the Middle East, and Iran, Saudia Rabia, and Iraq would continue to be our allies.

On the matter of Mr. Carter, I’ll suggest that the problems in the Middle East cannot be laid at the doorstep of any single American President. The history of American involvement in the Middle East is long and complicated. Did Eisenhower do the right thing during the Suez Crisis? How about the 1967 war or the 1973 war? Although you might think that the Camp David accords were a bad deal, they represent the only obvious success of American diplomacy; all of our other efforts have been ad hoc measures to prevent a disaster from growing worse. But I won’t ask you to credit Carter for Camp David; I will instead ask you to not lay all the blame on him. Every other President had the (difficult) opportunity to make peace in the Middle East, and nobody else succeeded in any way.

As to the latter argument, I agree that the Constitution does not, when strictly interpreted, protect a right to privacy. It protects all persons (not just citizens, by the way), from unreasonable searches. A “reasonable search” is accepted to be one that has been approved by an independent court. (That’s where the “warrant” part comes in.) That’s why we have the FISA court — to perform that function. Inasmuch as Mr. Bush has declared that he conducted searches in violation of the 4th Amendment (that is, without obtaining a warrant), he has declared himself to be violating the Constitution.

Lastly, the Fourth Amendment does not make any exceptions for military applications. It applies to ALL actions by the Federal government, regardless of whether the action is criminal, civil, or military, or undertaken during peace or war.

Again, you can cite a number of Supreme Court decisions that water down the absolute nature of the Fourth Amendment, but so long as we want to talk about strict construction, there just isn’t much room to manuever around the Fourth Amendment; it’s pretty plainly worded.